Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 38F (2026)

Exhaustion of administrative remedies under Sec. 38E; court consideration of inmate claims; exceptions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 38F. An inmate shall not file any claim that may be the subject of a grievance under section 38E unless the inmate has exhausted the administrative remedy established pursuant to said section 38E; but the court may consider such claim if a final administrative resolution of a grievance filed pursuant to said section 38E has not been decided within 180 days from the date of filing such a grievance, or if the inmate can demonstrate to the court that exigent circumstances exist which, if delayed pursuant to the requirements of this section, would jeopardize the life or seriously impair the health of the inmate, or, for actions seeking equitable relief.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Davis v. Commonwealth, 125 N.E.3d 784 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davis v. Commonwealth, 125 N.E.3d 784 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “The parallel provision in G. L. c. 127, § 38F, requires exhaustion to the extent the inmate's claims are based on State law.”

Grady v. Comm'r of Corr., 981 N.E.2d 730 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “G. L. c. 127, § 38F, inserted by St. 1999, c.”

Jackson v. Verdini, 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 539 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “” G.L.c. 127, §38F. Here, Jackson exhausted the administrative remedy established under Section 38E when his grievance was granted.”

Williams v. O'Brien, 936 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “See G. L. c. 127, § 38F, inserted by St. 1999, c.”

Megna v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 58 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “Under this statute, to show a likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiff must show that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, plaintiff must show that his condition is an exigent circumstance such that pursuing his administrative remedies…”

Ryan v. Pepe, 845 N.E.2d 1136 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “Section 38F states that “[a]n inmate shall not file any claim that may be the subject of a grievance under section 38E unless the inmate has exhausted the administrative remedy established pursuant to said section 38E.”

Braley v. Bates, 104 N.E.3d 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “To begin, as the defendant apparently concedes, the plaintiff was not required to exhaust all available administrative remedies before bringing his complaint because, pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 38F, a court may consider an inmate's nonexhausted "action[ ] seeking equitable…”

Shipps v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 236 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “G.L.c. 127, §38F (1991 ed. & Supp. 2000).”

George Mackie v. Bruce Patzner & Others. (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 3× “The Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 38F. Discussion. In 1999, the Legislature authorized the Commissioner of Correction to establish a "grievance system" for administrative review of inmate…”

Carter v. Spencer (D. Mass. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1997e(a) (1996), and M.G.L. c. 127 § 38F. Specifically, they contend that as to Grievance 1, the plaintiff failed to file a timely appeal and that as to Grievance 2, he failed to appeal the grievance at all.”

Reaves v. Corr. Med. Servs., 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 67 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “), citing G.L.c. 127, §38F. However, the statute explicitly provides for an exception where “exigent circumstances exist which, if delayed pursuant to the requirements of this section, would jeopardize the life or seriously impair the health of the inmate.”

Comm. for Pub. Couns. Servs. v. Chief Just. of the Trial Court (Mass. 2020). “See G. L. c. 127, § 38F; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).”

Show all 22 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.